32 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A NATION ON TRIAL, April 18, 2001
By A Customer
Life need not be an experience shrouded in mystery and confusion. If something appears to be out of synch or puzzling, one has only to examine the details more closely. This idea could also be applied to the cloak of uniqueness which has been draped around the holocaust. It seems Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" only adds to the murkiness. "A Nation on Trial" illuminates the scene by pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in Goldhagen's arguments, and citing accounts from post-war documents which show that Jews were certainly not the only victims to suffer. As "A Nation on Trial" reveals, the holocaust is not the only atrocity in the world to occur against groups of people. The ability to research and investigate without distortion should be traits of any individual in an institution of higher learning, especially when the character and reputation of an entire nation is at stake. It's a good thing that Finkelstein and Birn have written this book because it affirms that the truth really does matter.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
68 of 83 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fantastic book but a style that could rub some the wrong way, March 17, 2002
Two means are primary in infuriating a critic: (1) stating facts that the critic doesn't want to admit and (2) a style that feels like salt in a wound even if the facts comply with the critic's need. Unfortunately--though sometimes amusingly too--Professor Finkelstein practices both.
The book is a response to Goldhagen's Harvard dissertation--which certainly challenges Harvard's academic credibility in my book--which asserts that the "ordinary Germans," a phrase frequently used by Goldhagen, though not defined by him, knew of and actively endorsed the mass slaughter of particularly Jews throughout the Third Reich. It consists of two separate essays, the first by Finkelstein and the second by Birn, the former the son of concentration camp survivors and the latter a professional in investigating crimes against humanity.
Both authors challenge Goldhagen's use of evidence. Finkelstein offers more "commentary," some essentially calling Goldhagen silly and inept. Finkelstein himself offers reams of contradictory evidence to the meager claims suggested as proof of Goldhagen's thesis. Many even of the Nazi officers were perfect bureaucrats more than they were ideologues. Anyone who has worked in a partisan political environment knows the tendency of many a staffer to do that. It's how promotions are allocated more than on the basis of competence or capability! So, because such and such an officer did what the Fuehrer said, didn't make him an inherent anti-Semitic, mass murderer.
And both authors criticize Goldhagen's contention that the "Holocaust" was unique in human history, and particularly suited to German brutality. Both offer several examples of similar activities undertaken throughout history.
As for the average German, there is more evidence of their helping out victims of the Reich than of their active complicity in the slaughter. Of course, these are petty items Goldhagen didn't use because they would have contradicted his angle.
Finkelstein has had a bone to pick with Goldhagen, and to some other hyper-Zionists for some time. His "The Holocaust Industry" showed something he reiterates more briefly in this text that "The Holocaust," while of less major political note before then became a veritable industry after the 1967 war. At that point to challenge anything about the Israeli state or about Judaism in general--even by Jews!--was proclaimed to have an anti-Semitic motive. Finkelstein, offering countless examples of that by "writers" such as Elie Wiesel, accuses Goldhagen of capitalizing off that sentiment and blatantly political motive.
Birn's is a very sober analysis of Goldhagen's selective use of evidence--pieces chosen simply because they fit his thesis. She even credited an earlier critique of Goldhagen of her work in which Goldhagen disputed her statements; apparently the quotation marks weren't in the right places. Her fine summary comments on the "trivialization" of the holocaust, which seems to be happening now that the number of actual survivors of that catastrophe dwindles.
I have a weakness for Finkelstein's matter-of-fact style. But if I were to be in a privileged enough position to have my work criticized by either Finkelstein or Birn, I would prefer Birn's criticism. My ego would be less bruised.
This book is important for those who have read Goldhagen's book and wonder about Goldhagen's--or Harvard's--integrity. It is important for those interested in the critical thinking process, and how someone of ostensible credibility, an Ivy League doctoral student, can make some awfully weak arguments in defense of his claims. And it is very important for those who want to keep contemporary politico-Zionism in context. Read it. But don't expect any soft pedaling by Finkelstein.
By the way, I would not have granted Goldhagen his Ph.D. for the sloppy, ideological work in his book. As Birn points out, his thesis is fit for those who want a simple answer to a more complex situation. I add that it resembles hate literature, that "those Germans" were like that. It is, therefore, a mirror image of what Goldhagen claims to despise: propaganda. I would not enroll in a course he teaches, or spend a minute reading anything he'd written.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
44 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent, July 18, 2003
Arguing that much of the Holocaust literature contains gross misinformation and sheer lies, Finkelstein provides an important insight into Goldhagen's insidious attempt to distort historical facts. According to Finkelstein, Goldhagen's book is characterized by numerous contradictions, exaggerations and serious misrepresentation of the facts. For example, Goldhagen asserts in his book that all Germans were belligerent anti-semitists who when given the chance tortured every Jew they could come across. This of course is a gross overgeneralization given that the majority of serious historians agree that many Germans did not commit any enormities against Jewish people. Having said that, Finkelstein does not claim that they were not anti-semitists. On the contrary, many Germans were anti-semitists but they still chose not to take part in the extermination of Jews. Goldhagen however asserts that being a passive observer automatically makes you a perpetrator who is as guilty as the person committing the actual atrocities. If this is the case, then most people are perpetrators because we all sometimes witness heinous crimes and gross injustices not being able to stop them. Goldhagen further holds that the Holocaust was a unique event. Note that a unique event must contain unique victims. Thus, according to Goldhagen, Jews were unique victims. What about the gypsies who were murdered during the Holocaust? Why aren't they the unique victims? Why aren't they included in the history books? Distorting the history in this cynical way as Goldhagen does is morally reprehensible. Not all Germans actively participated in the Holocaust. Blaiming the entire nation is preposterous and indicative of spurious scholarship.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
